ไม่ใช่เวลาที่สวีเดนจะเข้าร่วมนาโต้ Not time for Sweden to change about NATO

 Not time for Sweden to change about NATO

A common EU view on modern security policy is more important - and an opportunity for Europe

Of:

Margot Wallström

PUBLISHED: TODAY 05.00

This is a cultural article that is part of Aftonbladet's opinion journalism.

Margot Wallström was Sweden's Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2014 to 2019

Photo: Lisa Arfwidson / SvD / TT

CULTURE

Now the darkness of war and death have fallen on Ukraine after Russia unprovokedly attacked its neighbor. We follow the media reporting with horror and the fear spreads. How will this end? How does it affect our own country and Europe?

Here at home, an intense debate has begun on security policy and on NATO membership.

"Some decisions must be difficult," writes Susanne Sjöstedt in Värmlands Folkblad. And she's right about that - especially decisions about a country's security policy. A government's main task is to guarantee the safety of the country's inhabitants.

Security policy decisions are based on the country's history and laws, geopolitical situation and threats, political and military positions, as well as alliances and collaborations. Changes in security policy can potentially and in the worst case expose the country to increased danger and / or risk of attack. A popular security policy creates security and becomes predictable. An updated definition of security is necessary, which expands the concept from military to "human security" and also includes the impact of climate change, cyber and hybrid threats, pandemics, terrorism and more.

Sweden has avoided war for more than 200 years. Our role during the Second World War is debated, but it is clear that it was then difficult positions for the government - and that the people of Sweden did not experience the horrors of the war.

National independence and the ability to choose collaborations and priorities, including economic ones, have been arguments for standing outside NATO

Sweden has a proud tradition of international commitment to peace and disarmament. The nuclear issue is an example of this and names like Dag Hammarskjöld, Alva Myrdal, Olof Palme have been written into the history books as peace fighters. Sweden has won respect for its stance and practical work in the context of disarmament, not least in the UN. They and Sweden have stood up for international law, against the supremacy of the strong, for the principles in the UN Charter. Rules that always apply and where we have consistently reacted to crime and abuse. Vietnam, Iraq, Syria are examples. We have done it for the sake of peace and freedom.

The benefits of the UN are obvious. The fact that a country is now brutally violating agreed rules does not mean that the rules are wrong, or that we do not need rules and cooperation to counteract this brutality.

For decades, neutrality, combined with its own strong defense, became the cornerstones of Swedish security policy. We have also been able to act credibly in international contexts where neutral actors have been requested for, for example, mediation and negotiations. National independence and the ability to choose collaborations and priorities, including economic ones, have been arguments for standing outside NATO.

The concept of neutrality became a military freedom of alliance when we joined the EU in 1995 and we have since had the European Union as our most important foreign and security policy platform. Since 2009, the EU's common foreign and security policy has included a so-called declaration of solidarity, which states that a country that has been attacked can request support and assistance from other EU countries. We ourselves have acted accordingly, for example when France was subjected to terrorist attacks.

I am convinced that in the future we will have a lively discussion about the EU's role in defense and security policy and what has been called 'strategic autonomy'. What is happening now is an opportunity for Europe to come together and cooperate on all the issues that a modern security policy must include, including migration.

Sweden has defense co-operation with a number of countries, most closely with Finland, and with NATO.

The issue of NATO membership must be seen and understood in terms of how the world has changed in terms of geopolitics and military power. The United States' dominant / decisive role is, of course, a circumstance that affects NATO, and the organization has experienced both ups and downs. When Trump became president, it shook the organization and here in Sweden, support for membership fell. (In the worst case scenario, a return of Donald Trump to power in the United States would coincide in time with a possible Swedish NATO accession.)

Turkey's membership in NATO has been controversial.

Over time, there has been strong popular support for the Swedish security policy stance.

Right now we are in a crisis and it is important to act together. Now is not the time to make drastic changes to our security policy. First and foremost, it would divide the nation - in a situation where it is important to stand together.

In his speech to us, the Prime Minister said that it is her and the government's task to do what is good for our country and its inhabitants. And it is good for us that we are working hard to strengthen an order based on democracy, human rights and each country's right to choose a path. We are now doing this through our continued political, humanitarian and military support to Ukraine and the struggling Ukrainian people. SLAVA UKRAINI.

Margot Wallström (S) Minister of Foreign Affairs 2014-2019